er, I never
dare doing it.
Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message
to document it, like:
/foo has been mounted xx times [...] check forced
If you need to boot quickly, you can safely interrupt with ^C and
postpone the check to the next startup.
Or are th
On Saturday 03 February 2007 10:39, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the
> message to document it, like:
In my experience it is safe, except when the / partition is being fsck'ed.
For / it is also safe, but I've been unable to get the system to bo
in a hurry I would like to be able to do ^C on it, and I
> would expect that the same check is run at next boot; however, I never
> dare doing it.
>
> Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message
> to document it, like:
>
> /foo has been mo
Hi,
* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 20:13]:
> On 02/03/07 03:39, Enrico Zini wrote:
[...]
> > Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message
> > to document it, like:
> >
> > /foo has been mounted xx times [...]
Ron Johnson wrote:
> The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed
> to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs
> to be filed against it?
Assumption: This only works, if the battery module is loaded at this
point. Normally acpid loads this module, w
Hi,
* Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 21:32]:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed
> > to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs
> > to be filed against it?
>
> Assumption: This only works, if the batt
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote:
> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and
> executes programs.
But the init-script does:
# As the name says. If the kernel supports modules, it'll try to load
# the ones listed in "MODULES".
load_modules() {
...
}
Regards
--
Hello!
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100, Nico Golde wrote:
> * Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 21:32]:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is
>>> supposed to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe
>>> a bug needs to be fi
Evgeni Golov wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote:
>
>> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and
>> executes programs.
>
> But the init-script does:
That's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification.
I can confirm the following behavior: If I boot with a
Hello,
Evgeni Golov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote:
>
>> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and
>> executes programs.
>
> But the init-script does:
>
> # As the name says. If the kernel supports modules, it'll try to load
> # the
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but
> sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people
> watching.
There actually is a feature in e2fsck to double the amount of mounts
be
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but
> > sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people
> > watch
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:24:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > You do need a mounted /proc at that time, though, which may be the
> > reason it's not working for you.
> A mounted /proc and if ACPI has been built using modules, the ACPI
> battery module needs to be installed, since that's how we
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Right. But would it actually be officially safe to interrupt with ^C ?
> That would give the user an opportunity to decide how in a hurry they
> are, and quickly get out of a difficult situation.
>
> If the answer is yes, ^C is offici
On 17-Feb-07, 17:55 (CST), Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the moment, if you want ^C to interrupt the e2fsck and you want the
> boot to continue, you actually have to set the following in
> /etc/e2fsck.conf:
>
> [options]
> allow_cancellation = 1
>
> See the e2fsck.conf(8) ma
Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> At the moment, if you want ^C to interrupt the e2fsck and you want the
> boot to continue, you actually have to set the following in
> /etc/e2fsck.conf:
>
> [options]
> allow_cancellation = 1
>
> See the e2fsck.conf(8) man page for more details.
>
> Regards,
>
>
Le Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:55:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit :
>
> It's not a great idea to do this indefinitely, and it's a matter of
> whether or not you trust the person in front of the machine not to be
> in a hurry and to always type ^C all the time to avoid the e2fsck run.
Hi all,
how ab
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:55:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit :
> >
> > It's not a great idea to do this indefinitely, and it's a matter of
> > whether or not you trust the person in front of the machine not to
> > be
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the
> > e2fscks skipped ?
>
> Too early. You might not know that a check is due.
Perfect time: you already know you ar
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:36:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900
> > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the
> > > e2fscks s
Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch
> > ext3.
>
> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3.
But it is much faster.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`.
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
>> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch
>> > ext3.
>>
>> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3.
>
> But it is much faster.
It is called rebuild-tree and
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:47, Goswin von Brederlow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> >> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch
> >> > ext3.
> >>
> >> R
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:47:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> >> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch
> >> > ext3.
> >>
> >> ReiserFS require
Le mercredi 21 février 2007 à 11:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a
écrit :
> >> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3.
> >
> > But it is much faster.
>
> It is called rebuild-tree and takes much much longer.
Rebuild-tree is a last-measure operation when the filesystem is too
corrupted for a regul
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:36:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900
> > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the
> > > e2fscks skipped ?
> >
> > Too
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:14:21PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch
> > > ext3.
> >
> > ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3.
>
> But it is much faster.
In t
27 matches
Mail list logo
